(Originally posted in the New Jersey Star-Ledger.)

As our state legislature gears up to vote on marriage equality in the lame-duck session, we have one question for lawmakers: Which side of history do you want to be on?

A state commission last year found that gay and lesbian families suffer because civil unions are not equal to marriages. Many people in the state fail to understand that civil unions do not keep the promise to same-sex couples that their rights will be the same as married couples in areas like health care, taxes, retirement and of course social recognition. Every aspect of life is affected.

Recent polls — including a 2009 Gannett-Monmouth University poll — show that more New Jerseyans support same-sex marriage than oppose it. Each day, more people throughout America believe in marriage equality. Young Americans increasingly accept gay people and support their rights, including the right to unite in marriage.

Struggles for civil rights, including the ACLU's 1967 fight for interracial marriage in Loving vs. Virginia, inevitably end on the side of securing rights rather than restricting them. Marriage equality is inevitable. The question is whether New Jersey legislators will live up to our nation's vision of equality and justice by recognizing gay families or turn their backs on progress as well as fairness.

The level of support for marriage equality in New Jersey ensures that legislators will not pay a political price for embracing equality. Indeed, opposition will put them in the company of people like George Wallace and William Fulbright, who lived to regret, and reverse, their opposition to laws ensuring racial equality. Strom Thurmond signed the Southern Manifesto opposing school desegregation, as did Fulbright, and filibustered for a full 24 hours to stop the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Despite his lifelong track record of racism, Thurmond later voted to extend the Voting Rights Act and to create a holiday in celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday.

If history's lessons and today's polls aren't enough to convince fence-sitting legislators, they need not look further than New Jersey's largest city to see gains in public acceptance. Despite a perception that African-American communities balk at gay rights and marriage equality, Newark's Mayor Cory Booker has become one of our state's most vocal advocates for equal rights and creating an environment that has allowed diversity to flourish.

At City Hall, Booker raises a pride flag in June and performs civil unions on Valentine's Day. But more substantively, he recently formed a commission to advise him on issues in the lesbian and gay community, and he helped pave the way for an after-school program that will serve as a safe harbor for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth.

He has not experienced political backlash. He has instead earned the respect and support of New Jerseyans across political parties and communities, because gay couples and their loved ones vote, pay taxes and contribute to the economy, and they favor the officials who favor their rights.

After an eight-year debate and an inadequate civil union compromise, the time has come for marriage equality in New Jersey. Marriage equality offers benefits to all New Jerseyans, and not only the benefits of social equality — it benefits our state's bottom line. Same-sex marriage would result in immediate cash flow in a state with a balance sheet billions of dollars in the red. Gay couples would flock to New Jersey to celebrate their marriages in beautiful shore towns and mountain vistas. They would move to New Jersey, bringing their tax dollars and brainpower with them.

Our legislators must consider what they want to tell their grandchildren — that they sided with human rights and dignity for families, or that they sided with discrimination, disenfranchisement and denial of essential rights. If history is any indicator, the future is clear — the legislators who vote for marriage will look back with pride because they moved our state forward. The ones who vote against it will be remembered as latter-day Strom Thurmonds, who fostered injustice instead of equal rights. Lawmakers shouldn't vote in the spirit of a prejudiced past, they should vote with history for a future of equality. Take Action: Tell New Jersey's legislators they can be on the right side of history by supporting the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will hold a hearing on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). This will be the first Senate hearing on ENDA since 2002. The legislation would help to ensure workplace equality by protecting LGBT workers from employment discrimination.

This will be the first time in the 111th Congress that the Senate has held a hearing on this critical legislation. Especially noteworthy will be the testimony of Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Tom Perez, his first since being confirmed by the Senate for his post. Assistant Attorney General Perez will testify on behalf of the Obama administration in support of the legislation.

Readers can watch the hearing live via webcast. Additionally, we will be providing live, play-by-play tweets from the hearing on our Twitter page at http://twitter.com/aclu.

It’s bound to be an exciting morning. Be sure to tune in.

We’ll be sure to provide a post-hearing summary on our blog later in the day.

Why ENDA Matters: True Stories of Anti-LGBT Employment Discrimination from the ACLU

(This post originally appeared on The Bilerico Project.)

To illustrate why Congress must pass the Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA), a federal law that would ban discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the workplace, we will be posting the firsthand accounts of people from across the nation who have been fired, refused a job, or harassed in the workplace because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. This summer the ACLU put out a call for stories, and these are just a fraction of stories we received.

Laura Elena Calvo of Portland, Oregon

From 1980 to 1996, I worked for the Josephine County Sheriff's Office in Grant's Pass, Oregon. At the end of my employment, I held the rank of Sergeant, although, during the course of my employment, I was promoted often and worked in a variety of capacities including as a S.W.A.T. team commander and a detective in both the Major Crimes Unit and the Narcotics Task Force.

During my 16 years at the Sheriff's Office, I received numerous commendations, including commendations for removing an automobile accident victim from a burning vehicle, delivering a baby alongside a roadway, disarming an armed man intent on harming himself, and for the expertise and diligence shown in a number of complicated criminal cases. I was named Deputy of the Year in 1994, and I also taught law enforcement classes at Rogue Community College and at the Oregon Police Academy.

Apart from a distinguished employment record and career in law enforcement, from my earliest recollection at about age four, I felt I was very different than other boys. I would have preferred to be born female.

In my late teens, I felt the need to express my female gender identity, and I began to cross-dress in private. In the day, this sort of thing was shameful, confusing and considered counter-social. I compartmentalized that part of my identity, keeping it a very well-kept secret. I went out of my way to be sure that, when I did express my gender identity, it was such that it was very unlikely it would be discovered. I rented a storage locker in another city and another county where I kept my cross-dressing items.

On Labor Day 1995, I was on duty in an extremely remote area of Josephine County searching for a fugitive when a police dog attacked me, penetrating the bones in my leg with its teeth. I suffered major blood and tissue loss, and my injuries required emergency surgery. After this incident, I was put on administrative leave until my leg could heal.

Roughly a month after this attack, the storage unit I rented in Medford, Oregon, was broken into and the contents stolen. I was notified of the theft and requested to file a police report. Since this storage unit contained only my female effects and belongings, I felt I could not report the crime because I would need to provide a list of the stolen property. I also assumed the items would never be recovered anyways.

However, within a week of the break-in, my immediate supervisor called me into the Sheriff's Office for a meeting. Instead of an office, I was brought into one of our interrogation rooms where I was informed that the Medford Police Department had recovered my stolen property alongside some railroad tracks. I was told that I was personally identified from very personal intimate pictures contained within the property and that these pictures had been seen by both Medford County and Josephine County officers.

I was told by my supervisor that the Sheriff felt that I would no longer be able to perform my duties because of the fact I had been discovered to dress as a woman and that it would be a big mistake to try to come back to work.

In the spring of 1996 after my leg had healed, I was ordered to travel to Portland for a psychiatric determination for fitness of duty. I went before a panel of doctors, selected by the Sheriff's Office, who determined I was not fit to return to work. I was informed that the Sheriff, in conjunction with the County's Risk Manager and Attorney, were in the process of putting together a settlement offer in return for my resignation.

The direct impact of the discrimination I experienced has been devastating on so many levels. I don't have a college degree or any other skills except law enforcement. I tried working as a school bus driver and driving a senior citizen bus, but found the work unrewarding. I contacted attorneys, but they said I had no legal protections. Had employment non-discrimination laws been in effect, I likely would have continued serving the citizens of Josephine County to this day.

William "Bart" Birdsall of Tampa, Florida

I was hired in 1997 as a teacher and then a school librarian and medial specialist for the School District of Hillsborough County in Tampa, Florida.

In July 2005, I was involved in protesting the dismantling of a gay pride book display at the local public library. I was quoted in the local paper saying that I was upset that the book display was prematurely taken down, both as a gay man and a school librarian.

The school superintendent was concerned that I was quoted in the paper and proceeded to have my behavior reviewed by the school district's Professional Standards Office. Professional Standards decided not to punish me for taking part in protests but warned me not to bring the issue into the workplace. I have always taken my work very seriously, and to have my professionalism called into question was hurtful and upsetting.

I continue to work as a school librarian and have always received satisfactory or outstanding marks on evaluations. I have lots of anger about the incident and my therapist says I show signs of post-traumatic stress.

If you want to learn more about the ACLU's work to support ENDA, check out the letter the ACLU sent to the House Education and Labor Committee. And please urge your Representative and Senators to support the bill.

On November 3, Washington voters will have the chance to approve or reject R-71, a measure that will allow same-sex couples and unmarried opposite-sex seniors to access many of the rights and protections granted to married couples. We’re counting down to Election Day with a series of seven videos, each a powerful illustration of why it’s so important to approve R-71.

Reason #6: Senior domestic partners Rose and Joe

Rose and Joe live in Evans, Washington, a tiny community on the edge of the Lake Roosevelt in the farthest northeast corner of the state. Rose has a rare autoimmune disease and relies on Medicaid to help pay for the medications she needs. If she and Joe were to marry, she would lose this health care coverage. Their domestic partnership allows Joe to be with Rose during her frequent hospitalizations, and also gives him the ability to help make medical decisions if she is unconscious.

Vote APPROVE on 71 to ensure that Rose and Joe will continue to able to care for each other.

You can watch all seven videos and support the campaign here.